21% of American atheists don't know what "atheist" means

[Victor Galis]

I would still make the argument that an impersonal force isn't the same as a deity. One could make the argument that the laws of physics are an impersonal force.

I don't really like to get into the semantics of religious debates anymore because the true believers are going to believe and the atheists won't and no one's convincing the other side any time soon.

[GePap]

Looking at the data, I would have to agree with Elok's interpretation.

Looking at the other religions, the classifications of "Personal God," "Impersonal force," and "other/don't know" seem more to do with how you classify God. Look for example at Christians of all types vs. religious but non-Christians - Christians, whom are huge into personal salvation, overwhelmingly say a "Personal God" while majorities of the others say "impersonal force."

I think many people who self-classified as Aethists have the same misunderstanding of Aethism as Elok and other people on this board do who continually claim Aethism to be a religion of sorts.

[DaShi]

Or it's just because some aetheists want to separate themselves from the aetheist loonies, so they can more easily criticize all religionistas based on the behavior of only the religionista loonies.

[Victor Galis]

I suspect it would make more sense to compare numbers for atheists vs. monotheists vs. polytheists vs. whatever.

Atheism doesn't really have clearly delineated sects. (Though I suspect there are some religions that by virtue of lacking a deity could fall under atheism.)

[GePap]

No, its because 79% of people who classify themselves as Aethists do know what that word means.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Victor Galis

Atheism doesn't really have clearly delineated sects. (Though I suspect there are some religions that by virtue of lacking a deity could fall under atheism.)

Since aethism isn't a religion, it can't have 'sects.'

[DaShi]

Originally posted by GePap
No, its because 79% of people who classify themselves as Aethists do know what that word means.

Language evolves, perhaps it is you who doesn't know what the word means now.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by GePap


Since aethism isn't a religion, it can't have 'sects.'

This is lending credence to my first theory.

[GePap]

Originally posted by DaShi
Language evolves, perhaps it is you who doesn't know what the word means now.

Not in this case.

Originally posted by DaShi


This is lending credence to my first theory.

You would make anything lend credence to your own theory.

People who not only don't believe in deities but who are driven to try to disprove there being any dieties should best be thought as Antitheist.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by GePap


Not in this case.



You would make anything lend credence to your own theory.

People who not only don't believe in deities but who are driven to try to disprove there being any dieties should best be thought as Antitheist.

But you don't get to decide what words mean.

[Victor Galis]

Originally posted by GePap


Since aethism isn't a religion, it can't have 'sects.'

It can be, or it can be the absence of one. Really, replace the word sects with something that implies groups of people sharing a belief system or worldview that isn't religious in nature . As I said, I hate semantic debates combined with theology.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by Victor Galis
As I said, I hate semantic debates combined with theology.

I love them. They get aetheists' knickers in a twist.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Victor Galis


It can be, or it can be the absence of one.

No, it can't, anymore than polytheism can be called a religion. A religion can be monotheistic, polytheistic, even aetheistic, but monotheism, polytheism, and aetheism are just stances on a single idea (existance of diety(ies)), not worldviews.

posted by Dashi
But you don't get to decide what words mean

No, that happens by consensus. Even if I were to accept your view, there is clearly no consensus as to the correct meaning and thus I can argue for the maintenance of a clearly defined one free of poor logic.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by GePap
No, that happens by consensus. Even if I were to accept your view, there is clearly no consensus as to the correct meaning and thus I can argue for the maintenance of a clearly defined one free of poor logic.

Yes, you can argue for it, but you can't claim it.

[GePap]

Anyone can claim unclaimed land.